Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00104)

You might be misinterpreting the newsletter in this regard, what they 
are saying is that without christianity there is no basis for a  
democratic form of govt so the comparison between eastern & western 
democracys is impossible because there is no eastern democracy unless 
you consider Israel 'eastern'. Communist China does not make any 
pretense at being a democracy, they have merely adopted capitalism to 
show that it is more successful under the communist banner, beating 
us at our own game so to speak. If they win at this fools game, they 
get to keep Tibet, Sikkim, and Bootan.


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> To all readers
> 
> My views are:
> 
> I just thought, that It might be a good idea to e-mail the latest 
official online Newsletter from Lucis Trust. 
> 
> - My view is, that in this Newsletter - in the below - we witness a 
clear tendency to support the view that a Western Democracy are 
SUPERIOR to other kinds of democracies. This is being done while one 
admits, that Religions and other factors have a strong tendency to 
undermine a great number of democracies.
> 
> My question is, how can a Western Democracy be said to be SUPERIOR 
to other kinds of democracies and political systems, when it so clear 
and visibly almost always is based on the Christian religious 
worldview and outlook upon the world???
> 
> There is a great tendency in the various Alice A. Bailey circles to 
show ignorance about how much the Christian religion influences the 
western democracies. And also a - huge non-compassionate - tendency 
to ignore the Christian influence upon Lucis Trust themselves and 
their promotion of the Alice A. Bailey books, with their heavy use of 
Christian vocabulary and their - huge non-compassionate - deepfreeze 
attitude towards mentioning anything Middle Eastern or Islamic - at 
all - and even esoteric Sufi teachings.
> 
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> 
> 
> >>>The Newsletter:  2008 #2 - The Meaning of Democracy <<<
> "Alice Bailey proposes that the universality of democracy is 
humanity's response - inaccurate as yet - to the pure energy of Love, 
and suggests that a true democracy will become possible "through a 
right use of the systems of education and by a steady training of the 
people to recognise the finer values, the more correct point of view, 
the higher idealism, and the spirit of synthesis and of cooperative 
unity." To move towards this true democracy, she indicates that what 
is needed is a greater number of truly awakened people; and when this 
is so, "we shall see a purification of the political field taking 
place, and a cleansing of our processes of representation instituted, 
as well as a more exacting accounting required from the people of 
those whom they have chosen to put in authority. There must 
eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the 
legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an 
effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day."(The 
Externalisation of the Hierarchy pp. 52-3)1 When this is so, ".people 
will not tolerate authoritarianism in any church, or totalitarianism 
in any political system or government; they will not accept or permit 
the rule of any body of men who undertake to tell them what they must 
believe in order to be saved, or what government they must accept." 
(op. cit. p.618) 
> Although democracy appears in a wide variety of forms, there are 
certain core features that most share. These are: that all who are 
competent to decide on how they should be led must have a regular say 
in how those leaders are chosen - hence a regular electoral cycle; 
that the vote of every citizen, from the richest to the poorest, 
should count the same in that process - hence the need for secret 
ballots;2 and that every citizen is completely free to decide how 
that vote should be cast, without intimidation or bribery - hence the 
need for a non-politicised police force and army. In addition, every 
citizen should have access to information about those who aspire to 
lead them - so the media should be free to provide full and unbiased 
coverage of all involved in an electoral process. 
> 
> Indeed, when most people think of democracy, what they really mean 
is liberal democracy - i.e. the combination of democracy as a means 
of selecting a government, with constitutional liberalism, namely, 
the protection of an individual's autonomy and dignity against any 
form of coercion, whether from the state, the church or society. Each 
tends to reinforce the other, for a state can only be truly 
democratic if its citizens are free, and can thus choose their rulers 
freely; and these freedoms should be best guaranteed by rulers chosen 
in this way. However, the commentator Fareed Zakaria notes that 
democratic elections can bring to power rulers who suppress 
freedoms.3 This he names 'illiberal democracy'.4 He also observes 
that democracy is not a necessary condition for the existence of high 
levels of constitutional liberalism. So, for example, a state might 
have a fully independent judiciary (one of the main institutions that 
guarantee constitutional liberalism), but the electorate might play 
no part in its selection. 
> 
> In fact, this is one example of a more general suggestion that 
Zakaria makes, namely that too much democracy may not be a good 
thing. In a complex modern nation-state, the electorate is unlikely 
to have sufficient knowledge to judge on the suitability of every 
state official, particularly those in very specialised fields, and so 
may choose to delegate this selection process to the leaders they 
have elected. And in any case, voting directly on every body that 
influences the conduct of politics in a democratic state is 
impossible, as governments must also pay attention to the input of 
leaders in business and religion, and, increasingly, to other non-
governmental organisations that have been set up by groups of 
citizens concerned about specific issues. The degree of influence 
that these 'special interest' groups have over the conduct of 
government represents a challenge - too much, and it might be argued 
that democracy is weakened to the point of oligarchy (the rule of 
elites); too little, and the culture of justified challenge to 
governmental excesses that characterises most democracies is 
neutered. 
> 
> In the articles which follow, we reflect on some of the issues that 
arise when considering liberal democracy: what are the qualifications 
of the democratic politician, and how did this role arise? Do the 
citizens of democracies have special responsibilities to protect and 
nurture them, and if so, what are these responsibilities? And what is 
the deeper meaning of 'freedom'? 
> 
> There is perhaps a tendency in the West to regard democracy as a 
panacea for the difficulties that any society faces as it attempts to 
modernise. Yet if democracy represents a certain phase of national 
consciousness, which can only be reached after other phases have been 
explored, then it may be that the attempted imposition of democracy 
on a nation which isn't psychologically ready for it would be counter-
productive. There are a number of supposed democracies around the 
world that are plainly dysfunctional in various degrees. This is not 
to suggest that individuals, groups and nations should not aspire to 
conditions of increased freedom; but societies, like individuals, go 
through an evolutionary process of maturing, and it would be naïve to 
suggest that the Western model of democracy, arrived at through 
centuries of struggle, could - or should - be simply transplanted 
into countries with different histories and cultural norms. In this 
sense, a fully democratic society has to be developed by a people 
through experience. And just as no-one would claim that every 
individual is now resonating strongly with the pure energy of Love, 
the same claim would seem equally misguided with respect to nations. 
Where does this leave a person of goodwill? With the difficult but 
necessary task of investigating a little more deeply whenever it is 
proposed that the solution to a country's ills is "more democracy". 
The expansion of freedom must and should be supported at all times - 
but the path of each nation to this exalted goal is unique, and no 
nation can claim to have reached the end. Liberal democracy is not a 
machine that can be cranked up whenever needed, but a subtle and 
continuous negotiation between a people and their leaders. Reflection 
on its deeper psychological dimensions may help make us more 
circumspect about recommending it in all circumstances. 
> 
> 1. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy is available here. 
> 
> 2. Which should be auditable, explaining the mounting unease about 
electronic voting with no paper trail. 
> 
> 3. Hitler, for example. 
> 
> 4. Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom. W W Norton & Co, 2004. "
> 
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill__1/news
letter/recent_issues/2008_2_the_meaning_of_democracy
> *******
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>